Proof of speeding violation

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ggops @ Mar 22 2007, 11:41 PM) [snapback]410676[/snapback]</div>

You can go to courts and tell the judge your cruise control was set at 72, the officer claimed you were going 87, came down to 80 and you observed his radar said 75. You can also ask when the last time his radar was calibrated. Just know speeding is hard to beat as you are assumed guilty until proven innocent and it is his word against yours.

That said, he's an a$$hole.

I don't know about your state, but in mine you have to be going at least 12-15 mph OVER the speed limit. So you can take a chance, not pay and go to court. If you lose it's on your record and could raise y our insurance. Or you can pay the fine and go to traffic school and it's erased. That's what they're counting on your to do. It's revenue.

 

That's garbage...

You should have played the meow game with him. :lol:

 

In court, he has to bring certification that the radar was calibrated very recently before he got you. He also needs to show it calibrated after he tagged you. He can't clock his buddy as proof either.

Which citation did you get written up for? Depending, you can ask for a road survey to prove that the prima facie speed limit was or wasn't valid. You also get to subpoena the back copy of his citation (Discovery). If you don't get it before the trial, he's in contempt of court and the judge, or the appeals court, has to throw the whole thing out.

There's a lot of radar defenses out there.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(NuShrike @ Mar 23 2007, 01:09 AM) [snapback]410727[/snapback]</div>

Usually the officer will testify that he performed the calibrations himself, and no evidence will need to be presented. And please, please, please be careful when giving out legal advice. You cannot simply mail out an informal discovery request and think your covered if they don't respond. You must file motions, set a hearing date, and a few other things to effectively use the discovery defense. Additionally, what applies in California may not necessarily apply in other states.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ggops @ Mar 22 2007, 11:41 PM) [snapback]410676[/snapback]</div>

Beating a speeding ticket is no easy task. Be prepared to spend a significant amount of time working on a defense, and consider whether or not it's really worth it to you. The system is against you from the start. The judge/commissioner/pro tem will most likely take the officer's testimony as gospel. Usually when the officer is supposed to present evidence, and fails to do so, the judge will allow it unless you object. If you raise an objection, you had better be prepared to cite the case or law that supports your objection, otherwise you will only succeed in pissing off the judge.

I'd highly recommend that you read the part of the law you are charged with violating, and then do a lot of research. A good starting point would be at your local law library. They should have the annotated codes you can check out, and find some cases similar to yours. You'll also need to research procedural rules to find out how to do things like file a discovery request, or motion to compel, etc..

That being said, maybe you'll luck out and the officer won't show up to court. The court should allow you to request traffic school after you are found guilty, but rules change in different jurisdictions.

 

Many, many years ago I got a ticket in Indiana for something-or-other. I don't remember why but I ended up in court. There was a guy before me that had a speeding ticket. He argued that he had the wrong sized tires on his car, so that his speedometer did not read correctly. He had been ticked for going X. He had his car tested to see how fast he was really going, when his speedometer read 55. The results came back Y, lower than X. The judge said, "so Y is still over the speed limit, right?" And he said "Right, but just a little..." So the judge let the ticket stand.

What I'm saying is, you admit your cruise control was set for 2 MPH over the speed limit. The judge may not be sympathetic with you on that fact alone.

What happened to you is a total crock but I agree it may be easier just to pay the fine.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Mar 23 2007, 12:53 AM) [snapback]410688[/snapback]</div>

Calling someone an a$$hole based on a one sided story is being an a$$hole. Look, NO ONE WANTS A TICKET...they will color their story everytime to benefit them. I can think of MANY resons for what was described...all legitimate. LOOK IN A MIRROR, this isn't the first time your disgust for the police has shone.

If your definition of "proof" is that he can show something in court, then the answer is no, if "proof" means his testimony, then yes. Stop watching TV!!!!

 

I got a speeding ticket not too long ago... I was going about 62 in a 45... which sounds bad, but it's a stretch of 3-lane interstate highway where the speed limit drops to 45 for about a mile, and every mofo on that road speeds. I had no problem swallowing the ticket, except that the cop put me down at 67 just to bump my fine into the very pricey range of 20+ over the limit.

There's not much we can do about it though because the cost to us to defend ourselves from abuse like that is greater in most cases than accepting the fine. It would mean time out of work, legal fees, and probably a losing battle anyway, since I was most definitely speeding

 

Far as I know I've driven about 115,000 miles in commuting over the last 3 years. The speed limit is 55... I'm working a hair of an offset schedule so commuter traffic is usually in the 65-75 range as I roll off my 130 miles a day... I figure it's only a matter of time before I get a ticket based on x number of cops patrolling so many miles of tollway with so many cars in the herd rolling along... I probably won't get chosen again for 2 or 3 more years.

I got picked out about 4 months ago, paid the 75 bucks and probably got some point on my driver license for a while.


Averaged out, I get 15 miles per penny of ticket-tax.

 

A small benefit to having a ScanGauge: It displays the maximum speed for your current trip. It won't help if you've exceeded the alleged "clocked" speed earlier in the trip. But if your maximum speed for the trip is 75, it may help support your case. If the officer doesn't accept it, you could take a digital picture of the display with a date and time stamp and bring it to court with you.

 

Man, that sucks... I know several areas that have radar detectors that print out the speed on a little sticker for the officer, and in those areas the sticker has to be present by law. It's really something that should be enforced nation wide to keep cops honest. Everyone knows that they get their monthly or quarterly quotas, and they'll issue more tickets at the end of the month than the beginning, and they're more likely to add a few miles to your speed just to bump it up and reach their quota faster...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ggops @ Mar 23 2007, 07:25 AM) [snapback]410820[/snapback]</div>

In a strict scientific sense, there is no such thing as proof. "Proof" in a court of law has a very diffferent meaning, having more to do with the procedural rules of the court than with actual fact. Cases often turn on who is believed. Making a good impression and having competent representation are far more important than actual guilt or innocence. When it's your word against the cop's word, chances are the cop will be believed because of the (sometimes erronious) assumption that he's dedicated to protecting society.

A man named Herrera was convicted in Texas of murder and sentenced to death. He later requested a re-trial based on new evidence, but the time limit had passed. Texas does not allow re-trials for new evidence after a certain time. In Herrera v. Collins (1993) the Supreme Court rejected his appeal. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Harry Blackmun said something to the effect that "executing a person who is actually innocent would be perilously close to murder."

Here's why I bring this up:

Justice Sandra Day O'Conner replied to Blackmun's objections by stating something like: "A person who has been convicted in a fair trial is actually guilty."

There had been no procedural errors in Herrera's original trial. O'Conner's statement is precedent for the assertion that the "correctness" of the trial (i.e., whether or not correct court procedures were followed) rather than the events themselves become the legal determinant for actual guilt or innocence.

Whether Herrera was innocent or guilty, O'Conner was saying that actual guilt or innocence depends on the court, and not on the facts of what occured.

You are innocent until proven guilty. But "proof" has nothing to do with facts, and everything to do with court procedure in the jurisdiction of your trial. And "proof" may be nothing more than the cop's word against yours, if the cop appears more convincing to the judge than you do.

You are much more likely to go free if you are guilty but have a good lawyer, than if you are innocent and have a bad lawyer.

In the case of speeding tickets, you are generally better off just to mail in the fine. Of course, you are better off yet to drive under the speed limit. Think of it as "protection" money paid to the mafia that calls itself the government. In every country, the biggest mafia gets to call itself the "government." (Though traffic laws are one of the few areas where this mafia does something good.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Mar 23 2007, 06:11 AM) [snapback]410764[/snapback]</div>

That's right. Your admission you were traveling (and purposely) 2 MPH over the speed limit will probably sink you.

Lawyers have an old saying "you cannot come to court with dirty hands"...

With that being said, yes, no one expects a speeding ticket at just 2 MPH over the limit. But I agree with the other posters, it is not worth your time, money, and effort to mount a defense which most likely will fail.

Rick
#4 2006

 

I've fought a few speeding tickets in my time; some successfully, some not. If you in fact state/provide evidence of in any matter that you were over the speed limit (even by 1 mph) the judge may find you guilty of speeding, with just the speed itself being the debate. I have been in court when someone was being charged with 2 mph over the posted 35 mph, and because I believe there was some history between the judge and the officer, the judge ruled in favor of the defendant.

In my area, if the speed you are being charged for is not the minimum (1-14 over posted), you can usually plead down to the prosecutor at your court appearance; this can reduce your fine/points for you, and might be done to ease the prosecutor's load - this all depends on your driving record.

 

The best you can hope for is to plead it down to a fine with no points. That's what I did. They only want your money.

 

It's good to carry a disposable camera or use your cell phone camera and take a picture of the radar/laser gun and the reading. The officers credibility is questionable if he cited you for 80 when the gun said 75. He lied.

 

Dude just man up and pay the ticket. You were speeding. If you weren't then take it to court and dispute, but believe me, the courts will probably side with the cop because people like you ALWAYS claim you are soooo innocent.

Godiva.. grow up.. Calling a cop an a$$hole for doing his job is just plane immature. GROW UP LIBERALS.